South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Samuel Hackett, #117647 vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Samuel Hackett, #117647

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
04-ALJ-00326-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
Grievance No. KER 0081-04

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is an appeal by Samuel Hackett, #117647 (Hackett) of a final decision in a non-collateral or administrative matter issued by the South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC). Thus, appellate review jurisdiction vests in the Administrative Law Court (ALC). Slezak v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d 506 (2004).

However, for inmate appeals, the nature of the appellate review depends upon the nature of the claim presented. Appeals that do not implicate an inmate's state-created liberty or property interest may be summarily decided. Id.("We hold that the [ALC] has jurisdiction over all properly perfected inmate appeals, but clarify that it may summarily decide those appeals that do not implicate an inmate's state-created liberty or property interest."). On the other hand, appeals that implicate a protected interest are reviewed under the appellate review standards of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742, 754 (2000) (The ALC conducts an APA review "in an appellate capacity" and is "restricted to reviewing the decision below.").

II. Analysis

Here, Hackett presents a claim that challenges a DOC decision that resulted in a guilty verdict to the charge of fighting without a weapon, defacing property, and inciting or creating a disturbance. However, DOC imposed no sanctions.

Such a challenge implicates a liberty interest only if "the State's action will inevitably affect the duration of [the inmate's] sentence" (Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995)) or if the state has granted some benefit of which the inmate has been deprived and the deprivation "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).

Here, DOC imposed no sanctions. Such actions do not inevitably affect the duration of the sentence imposed on Hackett. Further, the claim does not implicate a state-created liberty interest since DOC's action of not imposing sanctions is not an action that is a significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Thus, the claim here fails to implicate a protected liberty or property interest and warrants a summary dismissal.

III. Conclusion

The decision entered below by DOC against Samuel Hackett, #117647 is AFFIRMED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge

Dated: January 13, 2005

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court